May 25, 2005
Reporting from Mosul
Michael Yon has an excellent article up on how news actually gets from the battlefields and neighborhoods in Iraq (sometimes the same thing) to the front page in America (be sure and read the whole thing):
"The formula followed by foreign (non-Iraqi) journalists here is different than that used by the local papers back home. Western media cannot free-range Iraq, asking questions and jotting answers on notepads, particularly where insurgents cut off the heads of anyone they do not agree with, later posting "news" videos of their own. Here in Iraq, where bullets are often the background noise, most news agencies get their daily facts spoon-fed straight from the military. The basic building block for just about any news item reported in mainstream press is something called a SIGACT.SIGACTs are Significant Actions; anything that significantly affects friendly or enemy forces, from sandstorms to IEDs. SIGACTs originate at the smaller units and feed to higher units quickly; sometimes in seconds. If a soldier dies on a dusty street in Mosul, his HQ on FOB Marez might know within seconds, and soon his higher HQ, then various HQs in Baghdad will learn. People at Central Command in Tampa might get the news moments later, as will the Pentagon in Washington. Good or bad, information travels faster than bullets. In fact, SIGACTs travel faster than bullets every minute of the day."
This photo and the caption below explains why much of the "news" is so damned negative:
Photo © by Michael Yon, 2005
"Tailoring Facts to Fit Expectations. This Czech journalist told me the BBC did not believe it when he reported that American troop morale was high. They were concerned he was making friends with soldiers."
Posted by GM Roper at May 25, 2005 07:48 AM | TrackBackI have had this discussion with my son, a Journalism major. In order to keep their jobs and develop a career within the field, a journalist has to keep his editor happy. You don’t see “human interest†items in the press because they don’t carry enough “bang†to suit the editor, who has his own “career†to worry about. So journalists submit the kind of copy to their respective editors that (a) will make him or her happy, and (b) will actually get published. Reporting on “high morale†does not fit the mold the editors are looking for.
In my view, this is exactly how (and why) the 4th estate has become corrupt. In the words of one recent visitor to Iraq, you heard the story about the 100 Iraqi police applicants who were blown up, but you didn’t hear about the 700 applicants who showed up the next day.
Posted by Mustang at May 25, 2005 09:23 AM
This Yon writes:
"But news of a baby girl with a circulatory condition who needed hand surgery getting medical help from U.S. soldiers and a concerned nurse did not become a SIGACT, nor will it be included in a media release."
Well, hang on, there's nothing extraordinary about that, that's the job of an occupier in any event, to provide needed infrastructure to a recovering vanquished country, no? how is it 'news'? News would be the reality that most Iraqis have not seen improvement in health infrastructure or much other infrastructure for that matter. That is news, since it explains much of the fact of a resistance to the occupation by the US.
His 'theory' about 'it bleeds it leads' is totally unconvicing, since that is something that *benefits* the US military. The US media do not attach nearly as much excitement to Iraqi deaths as they do to American deaths in Iraq. When I listen to American reports, they are mostly about the state of the military occupation, strategy, etc.--i.e. the military's perspective and problems are front and center. What this tells me is things are as bad as military leaders in Iraq have been stating to journalists recently.
Compare, say, Yon's little 'soldier saves Iraqi girl' story with the substance of a story like this from the LA Times [and note the Times' sources]
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/complete/la-fg-milassess24may24,1,5373144,print.story?coll=la-iraq-complete
Which is more valuable for young people in the US deciding whether or not to join the military or to go the Bush children option?
Posted by steve at May 25, 2005 11:14 AM
"In the words of one recent visitor to Iraq, you heard the story about the 100 Iraqi police applicants who were blown up, but you didn’t hear about the 700 applicants who showed up the next day."
Well, yes, but that's not a sign of much else aside from what most journalists find to be the case after a few interviews, namely--huge unemployment rates. Even most military sources will admit that that's the reason for the phenomenon you correctly note.
Posted by steve at May 25, 2005 11:22 AM
Seems to me maybe the BBC doesn't really understand the nature of
morale in military units. Real morale problems are usually brought
on by boredom and lack of mission definition...not sure how much
of a problem that is in Iraq. But, let's face it, bitching in the
miltary has always been a form of high art, is perfectly normal,
and is actually a sign of high morale. At the other end, you would
see a high rate of defection (not really sure how you would
achieve that in Iraq!) and mass failure to obey orders.
Posted by jim hitchcock at May 26, 2005 12:44 AM
